I was talking to a mate of mine not CFS who claimed that he saw some firefighting aircraft the were not helicopters picking up water with out landing, like skimming across the water. I didn't think we had any aircraft that could do this do we?
not in SA.
I don't think there is anything in OZ, but I could be wrong. A few years ago we had the Canadair aircraft here, they were designed for this purpose but our reservoir's weren't big enough to take this aircraft, and if the swell was 1/2 metre or more it could not collect any water from the sea, and would have to be filled on the ground. I think they could carry 30,000litres of water but not quite sure, it was a few years ago now, but someone on here might remember. :-D
The Canadair was trialled here a few years ago, but (thankfully) not taken up by SA, for the reasons you list scrawns - although I think it was more like 9000 litres, than 30,000 litres (but I'm digging to the back of the memory bank, so my figures may not be correct.)
There are some huge bombing aircraft in America, which carry large quantities of water which may be 30,000 litres.
A few months ago, I think in NSW, there was a pilot killed when his fire bombing aircraft crashed into a lake, while they were trialling a way of scooping water from the lake, so I suppose in a way there was something other than a chopper taking water from the lake...albeit not very successful.
Pip
Quote from: scrawns1 on March 16, 2008, 09:34:27 PM
I don't think there is anything in OZ, but I could be wrong. A few years ago we had the Canadair aircraft here, they were designed for this purpose but our reservoir's weren't big enough to take this aircraft, and if the swell was 1/2 metre or more it could not collect any water from the sea, and would have to be filled on the ground. I think they could carry 30,000litres of water but not quite sure, it was a few years ago now, but someone on here might remember. :-D
The Canadairs are the ones that were tested & rejected. the CL-215 could lift 4000L & the CL-415 can lift 6000L. In 2001 when I researched it, the CL-415 cost just shy of AU$30M each, needs a crew of 2, & if not operating off a lake (haven't seen many of them in rural SA), need lots of concrete runway (haven't seen many of them either).
http://www.bombardier.com/index.jsp?id=3_0&lang=en&file=/en/3_0/3_3/3_3_0.html
By comparison, the AT802F lifts around 3000L, cost AU$1.2M & can operate from any paddock. http://airtractor.com/at-802f
Do the maths.... :-)
AirTractor do a seaplane kit for the AT802F that lets them skim & scoop. They call it the "Fire Boss". Col Pay was killed late last year testing one in the Hunter. :-(
cheers
ok thanks for that :-)
Those American water bombers have about an hour turn around i believe. They can only land on full length runways and take ages to refill.
Oh well...in the newspaper last week, Foley has promised an aircrane in SA for the next fire season...I would be interested in how it is going to be paid for because next years SES budget has been decreased :oops:
every major fire since KI in Region 1 and 2 has had the Skycrane responded so far right? We don't need to buy a skycrane when we already have one available to us...
Once again this is just media hype, no extra money will have to be spent since its already being spent. Rann, and the rest of the labor government...please stop being so camera happy.
Bring on having a few more AirTractors and Helitaks (of the Koala kind ;))
Quote from: Zippy's Fruit Juice on March 17, 2008, 04:59:10 PM
Bring on having a few more AirTractors and Helitaks (of the Koala kind ;))
Agree with you there Zippy. What did happen to the 2 Coulson Helitacks that were based at Brukunga early in the season?
I believe there was one Koala based at the airport, still badged as 533 I think, it was from Heliair, but I dont think it was used anywhere :-(.
bajdas not good news again :-(.
I would suggest, as others have, it would be leased for the whole summer, not brought over when its thought it might be required.. - I think they are around 30million? if bought outright?
$30mil + ongoing costs :P
yeh the koala's seemed to just drop out of the sky entirely...they were great lil choppers!
Rather than blaming media hype, perhaps people should have had a closer look at the recommendations from the Wangary fire.
The Coroner recommended that the State investigate the possibility of getting a skycrane stationed in SA permanently......
Pip
Pip you are right of course - investigate the possibility!
Is it really the best option? 1 skycrane + support equipment + additional personnel, is this really the best way to spend limited dollars?
Yes Wangary was a tragedy & yes aircraft are a valuable tool, however what will be cut to buy this?
What will it do in the winter months? Will it really improve the safety of the community at large or just the Adelaide Hills face?
Remember the coroner is not an expert on everything - the ACT had a bigger tragedy and the coroner made various recommendations, however the government there hasn't rushed out and bought Skycranes or anything else!
The Dandenongs & the Eastern part of Victoria & the Blue Mountains, northern Sydney & the area around Sunderland shire in NSW are also high risk areas, yet neither government are buying them.
I remember that when I did my Emergency Management course we were told then that even though the public think that aircraft are the answer to the wildfire problem, in fact its troops on the ground & good training that is most effective against wild fire. And think of this What if there are several large going fires threatening communities (i.e Ash Wednesday), the Skycrane can't be everywhere can it? So who will miss out then? $30 million can equip & train a lot of fire fighters or do a lot in the area of prevention.
Just my thoughts, after all I'm not a firey :wink:
cheers
QuoteAnd think of this What if there are several large going fires threatening communities (i.e Ash Wednesday), the Skycrane can't be everywhere can it?
Thats a good point raised. We need to be prepared for our worst case scenario which is multiple large going fires. Relying on a single aircraft for that amount of money can only assist in one or two of the fires. While more Fixed Wings would be able to be distributed around the multiple fires.
I think our current set up is fine right now, and is already better than what we had prior the wangary fires.
I think 30 mill is more than the entire CFS budget?
But I believe that SA will not buy a crane put put out a contract.
Did the coroner mention anything more specific than look at getting a aricrane? like some backing up footnotes or something
I believe the CFS has already met one of the recommendations of putting 2 Aircraft on the Eyre Peninsula, much like the Mt Gambier Airbase setup. That was definately a great decision.
Quote from: chook on March 18, 2008, 07:59:13 AM
I remember that when I did my Emergency Management course we were told then that even though the public think that aircraft are the answer to the wildfire problem, in fact its troops on the ground & good training that is most effective against wild fire. And think of this What if there are several large going fires threatening communities (i.e Ash Wednesday), the Skycrane can't be everywhere can it? So who will miss out then? $30 million can equip & train a lot of fire fighters or do a lot in the area of prevention.
WELL SAID!!!
The aircranes are available to us every year through the national aerial scheme but we have to share with act, tas and us? so do we really need a dedicated aircrane to us?
30m spent on updating training, PPE, better equipment for our trucks etc i believe would be better spent.
Quote30m spent on updating training, PPE, better equipment for our trucks etc i believe would be better spent.
$30mil would go a long way in terms of training and equipment.
Quote from: bajdas on March 17, 2008, 04:39:11 PM
Oh well...in the newspaper last week, Foley has promised an aircrane in SA for the next fire season...I would be interested in how it is going to be paid for because next years SES budget has been decreased :oops:
Maybe I mis-typed or mis-worded the above posting, but I read the article that SA would have the aircraft allocated to SA next fire season....no mention of buying one.
IS the $30 million being discussed the cost of operating a helitanker for the fire season or cost of purchase ? I doubt SA Government would buy one.
the coulsons contract was only for a few months, the helitaks went home when it expired [after being extended once or twice...]
an aircrane is nice and dandy, and looks fantastic on the front page of the 'tiser or screaming across your telly at home on the 6 o'clock news...
but imagine if the same money for an aircrane contract, was spent on an extra 6 (i have been told it would work out to roughly) air tractors.... meaning the ability to station more aircraft on the LEP & LSE and another 2 'spares' in the MLR.
My dream would be;
4 Air Tractors on the LEP (currently 2)
4 Air Tractors in the LSE (currently 2), perhaps 2 at Naracoorte, 2 at Mt Gambier
6 Air Tractors in the MLR (currently 4 during the peak of the season), perhaps 4 at Woodside, 1 at Cherry & 1 at Mt Crawford...
Now that would make a much bigger differance than one aircrane that would struggle to work outside of the Adelaide Hills, due to fuel usage & water availability.
But ill just have to keep dreaming.
youve got it pretty much right on target OMGWTF...nice thinking!
Aircranes offer a better service than airtractors. they can pick up from anywhere without landing, dams, even a pool, and can hold 3 times an air tractor. They could put at least 10 times the water on a fire than an air tractor over the same time period. (and in most places, water sources are fairly close by).
They can also direct water easier, are safer than fixed wings, can dump more concentrated loads (lower speeds).
People are too willing to "shoot down" things due to cost, without really looking at the advantages.
I'm more than happy to have an air-crane here as they are so effective. The government is not buying one for $30m, just having one here for the whole season (which was done basically this year anyway...).
Skycrane Waterbombers probably do have there place, and thats probably only the Rural/Urban interface..not so much the flatland and plantation fires.
While i support air tractor's more as they can do much more with there water.
Quote from: Gilly on March 19, 2008, 02:47:58 PM
Aircranes offer a better service than airtractors. they can pick up from anywhere without landing, dams, even a pool, and can hold 3 times an air tractor. They could put at least 10 times the water on a fire than an air tractor over the same time period. (and in most places, water sources are fairly close by).
They can also direct water easier, are safer than fixed wings, can dump more concentrated loads (lower speeds).
People are too willing to "shoot down" things due to cost, without really looking at the advantages.
I'm more than happy to have an air-crane here as they are so effective. The government is not buying one for $30m, just having one here for the whole season (which was done basically this year anyway...).
Some good points there Gilly....but
1 aircrane compared to 6 air tractors. Do those advantages you state still outweigh 6 air tractors?
Yep you are right - lease not purchase, & yep a good tool as I said. I repeat though what else could you do with 30 mil? And of course costs come into it!
Not sure about SAMFS or CFS but every other department must make compulsory savings (SES$500,000), SAPOL etc.
So next year Gilly when you have that bright orange helicopter sitting on the ground, don't whinge about all of the other stuff you don't have.
Anyway it doesn't matter the decision is out of our hands & they look so good as a back drop for the premier.
If the states were smart they would get together & convince Rudd to buy a fleet for the defence department, that way we get a good capability, defence get a good capability & the fedaralies pay for it :wink: I mean they don't care defence is 6 Billion over budget!
Anyway I'm proberly not the right person to comment as I'm starting to realise the cuts we are going to suffer next budget - (thanks Mike!) & I won't be here for the next fire season.
cheers
Well i guess if something costs more it should do a better or diffrent job. But still 30 mill seems a lot where has this figure come from?
Quote from: Gilly on March 19, 2008, 02:47:58 PM
Aircranes offer a better service than airtractors. they can pick up from anywhere without landing, dams, even a pool, and can hold 3 times an air tractor.
all absolutely true !
Then there come some conditional truths Gilly.
Quote
They could put at least 10 times the water on a fire than an air tractor over the same time period. (and in most places, water sources are fairly close by).
My opinion - it is only an opinion since I wasn't actually under it, merely noticing cycle time from the NE flank of the Willunga fire...
The Crane made a big difference at the Willunga fire.
(It hurts to say that - I'm a AT802F fan). Because it was in the hills with a lot of decent farm dams available close by, it was dropping 8,000+ Litres every five minutes or so. The AT's take time to fly to an airstrip, land, load (2 mins with the latest pumps at Cherry Gdns) take-off, return to the FG & be tasked by the AAS... maybe 3,000L per 20 mins. Quicker if the fire is closer.
Away from the Hills & the farm dams, the AT's probably have the edge. The Crane is slower so its cycle time would be much longer.
Quote
They can also direct water easier, are safer than fixed wings, can dump more concentrated loads (lower speeds).
Any rotary winged aircraft is inherently more dangerous than a fixed wing one. If the big wheel stops turning, it's a brick...
On the other hand, the ten or so AT802's that would be needed to do the job of the one Crane ***in this one situation*** would need careful management to avoid bumping into each other.
It would also need some investment in reloading & refuelling infrastucture at the various airbases.
QuotePeople are too willing to "shoot down" things due to cost, without really looking at the advantages.
You noticed that too, huh !! Mind you, has anyone actually seen a cost comparison between one Crane @ between $12K & $22K / hour flying time depending upon who you believe, plus stand-by costs, vs. a pack of AT802Fs at whatever their hourly rate is ?
The operating costs of 10 AT802Fs per hour may possibly be comparable to one Crane. But 10 x 802's can be at 10 different fires just as easily as beating the living daylights out of one fire...
The other thing is that for every hour of flight time, the Cranes have to spend much more down-time for maintenance - something like 2:1. If one of 10 AT's breaks, you can still run at 90% of their capacity. If a crane breaks, you run at 0% of its capacity until fixed..
Quote
I'm more than happy to have an air-crane here as they are so effective. The government is not buying one for $30m, just having one here for the whole season (which was done basically this year anyway...).
We got lucky this year - it rained interstate, & a mate in RFS Blue Mountains was bragging that their max temp hasn't exceeded 30C at all in 2008... Could have very easily squabbling with Vic & NSW for it & come away with nothing.
Anyway, enough with grizzling from me.
There's no question that the Crane is good.
Just whethwer it represents the *best* value for our money.
cheers
AJ
[edit: fixed quoting]
Quote from: Alan J on March 19, 2008, 10:40:07 PM
Any rotary winged aircraft is inherently more dangerous than a fixed wing one. If the big wheel stops turning, it's a brick...
I tend to disagree.
Sure if the engine stops it will fall from the sky, but those air tractors are not exactly gliders, especially with a full load!
My view on their safety is only related to the hills and forrest areas. (which is where most intensive bombing is done due to lack of ground access, fire behaviour on slopes etc).
An aircrane can maneuver with more precision and safety around hills, power lines etc as they can stop, up down forwards back etc. you name it, they can move there. Airtractors are limited to forwards motion at high speeds. not the best flying up a valley under powerlines etc.
Airtractors are much more effective and efficient on flat land, but for the hilly areas, forrests and really intense bombing activities, a skycrane is a much better, and "worth the money" option in my opinion
I believe that a combination of air-tractors and skycrane like we have is the best configuration. To send away a skycrane would be losing effectiveness and abilities, and to have one here on contract for the FDS is an advantage.
It would be interesting to hear a pilot's view - what they believe are the pro's and cons of the states various options...